Multiple Actions Taken to Address Electronic …...2004/09/01 · Multiple Actions Taken to Address...

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Catalyst for Improving the Environment

Evaluation Report

Multiple Actions Taken to AddressElectronic Waste, But EPA Needsto Provide Clear National Direction

Report No. 2004-P-00028

September 1, 2004

Report Contributors: Steve HannaLaura TamAnne Bavuso

Abbreviations

CRT Cathode Ray Tube

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

E-waste Electronic waste

LCD Liquid crystal display

NEPSI National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative

NGO Non-governmental organization

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OIG Office of Inspector General

OSW Office of Solid Waste

RCC Resource Conservation Challenge

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Cover photo: Computer equipment at a landfill (courtesy Snohomish County, Washington).

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

September 1, 2004

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Multiple Actions Taken to Address Electronic Waste,But EPA Needs to Provide Clear National DirectionReport No. 2004-P-00028

FROM: Carolyn Copper /s/Director for Program EvaluationHazardous Waste Issues

TO: Thomas P. DunneActing Assistant AdministratorOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

This is the final report on our evaluation of the effectiveness of EPA’s electronic waste programsand regulations conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIGidentified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of theOIG and the findings contained in this report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position.Final determination on matters in the report will be made by EPA managers in accordance withestablished resolution procedures.

Action Required

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to thisreport within 90 days of the date of this report. You should include a corrective actions plan foragreed upon actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release ofthis report to the public.

If you or you staff have questions, I can be reached at (202) 566-0829, and Steve Hanna, ProjectManager, can be reached at (415) 947-4527.

i

Executive Summary

Purpose

The use of electronic devices for both business and personal applications hasincreased dramatically in recent years. These electronic devices includecomputers, TVs, VCRs, DVD players, and cellular phones. Rapid turnover ofthese electronic devices is estimated to generate over 2 million tons of electronicwaste (E-waste) per year, which raises environmental concerns due to both theE-waste volume and the quantity of hazardous chemicals associated with thiswaste stream. Approximately 70 percent of the heavy metals in municipal solidwaste landfills are estimated to come from electronics discards. Heavy metalssuch as lead and mercury are highly toxic substances that can cause well-documented adverse health effects, particularly to children and developingfetuses.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented many projects,including pilot programs, in efforts to address the E-waste management problem. The purpose of this report is to determine whether these programs have adequatelyaddressed concerns associated with E-waste. Specifically, our review evaluated:the outcomes of EPA’s E-waste projects and policies; the existing regulation ofhousehold hazardous waste; and the information EPA collects on E-waste.

Results

EPA’s Office of Solid Waste (OSW) has implemented or participated in manyrecent projects that have enhanced the general awareness of E-waste issues andincluded a wide range of stakeholders. Stakeholders are complimentary ofOSW’s competence, enthusiasm, and dedication. OSW implemented orparticipated in its E-waste projects voluntarily as a result of their recognition of adeveloping problem, and not as the result of any mandate or new requirement. However, the potential benefits have not been fully realized because the projectshave not been implemented or coordinated in support of a clear set of programgoals and measures of effect. In addition, OSW has not finalized a long-delayedrulemaking on the regulation of Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs), and was forced towithdraw from its own high-visibility product stewardship initiative due topotential cooperative agreement violations. Despite demonstrating someleadership in the effective management of E-waste, this has impacted OSW’sleadership credibility in the development of national solutions to E-wasteproblems. Due to incomplete actions related to addressing E-waste, EPA cannotensure that the human health and environmental risks associated with E-waste arebeing effectively addressed.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, household hazardous waste,including E-waste, may be disposed at municipal solid waste landfills. To the

ii

degree that E-waste is not recycled or put to further use, this has the potential toallow significant volumes of E-waste disposal at municipal landfills, which couldpotentially complicate any efforts to regulate E-waste at the national level. Whilethe regulation of household hazardous waste is complex due to the millions ofhouseholds nationwide, OSW has not addressed the impacts of this or defined anypossible alternatives outside of emphasis on recycling and voluntary programs.

Regarding information on E-waste, OSW has not adequately defined the datarequired to characterize the E-waste problem or track progress, and must rely onspeculative data. Further, EPA does not have basic information on the ultimatedisposition of its own surplus computers.

Recommendations

We recommend that EPA define the E-waste program, goals, performancemeasures, and data requirements; ensure that all future E-waste projects areclearly linked to these goals and coordinated with each other; and take actions toimprove guidance. We also recommend that EPA ensure that household E-wastevolumes are estimated at least every 2 years to determine the impact and facilitatecontingency planning. Further, EPA should identify the relevant data needed insupport of E-waste goals and performance measures, and take action to have theneeded data collected, including for EPA equipment.

In the response to our draft, EPA agreed with many of our recommendations anddisagreed with some. Based on the Agency's comments, we made some revisionsand clarifications to our report where appropriate. In addition, based on afollowup meeting with the Agency to discuss its comments, agreements werereached to resolve and clarify recommendations where we did not have completeagreement. A summary of the Agency's response and our evaluation is included atthe end of each chapter. The Agency's complete response is included inAppendix A.

iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Chapters

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 EPA’s Projects Lack Defined Goals and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Majority of E-waste May Be Disposed in Municipal Landfills . . . . . . . . 17

4 EPA Does Not Collect Adequate Data on E-waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appendices

A Agency Response to Draft Evaluation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

B Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1

Electronic waste at a landfill (EPA web site)

Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose

This report addresses efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Office of Solid Waste (OSW) to manage electronic waste (E-waste). We soughtto determine whether existing EPA regulations and programs adequately addressthe risk and resource recovery concerns associated with E-waste. For thepurposes of this review, E-waste refers to hazardous and solid waste arising fromthe disposal of electronic devices such as computers, monitors, televisions, andcellular phones. Specific questions addressed were:

• What outcomes have resulted from existing EPA waste programs and projectsand what impacts have EPA’s E-waste policies had on State and local solidwaste management programs or policies?

• Is EPA’s current regulatory oversight of household hazardous waste andconditionally-exempt small quantity generator E-waste generation effective?

• What information does EPA currently have on E-waste generation, recycling,and disposal?

Background

Electronic Devices Present New Waste Challenges

The use of electronic devices for both business and personal use has increaseddramatically in recent years. These electronic devices include computers(including printers and monitors),TVs, VCRs, DVD players, andcellular phones. At the same time, thelife spans for these items aredecreasing due to growing demand forenhanced features and performance. The ubiquitous presence of cellularphones and the advent of liquid crystaldisplays (LCDs), tablet PCs, andplasma TVs illustrate the rapid rate ofchange, since these devices were rareor unknown only a few years ago. Furthermore, many new technologiesare on the horizon.

1“Municipal Solid W aste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures. Appendix C, Computer Electronics

in Municipal Solid Waste,” EPA. 2Computerworld , "Cleaning IT's Basement," Feb. 2004.

3Computer TakeBack Campaign and Californians Against Waste, "Poison PCs and Toxic TVs," Feb. 2004.

4"Computers, E-waste, and Product Stewardship: Is California Ready for the Challenge," report for EPA

Region 9 prepared by the Global Futures Foundation, June 2001.2

Environmental concerns with electronics are associated with the dramatic increasein the volume of E-waste – a waste stream estimated to be growing approximatelythree times as fast as the rest of the municipal waste streams. The nationalvolume of E-waste is estimated at over 2 million tons per year, and approximately90 percent of this waste may be ultimately disposed at municipal solid wastelandfills.1 This estimate includes approximately 50 million computers becomingobsolete each year, with over 300 million obsolete computers estimated by 2005.2

The problem with E-waste is not just the volume of waste generated, but also thevolume of hazardous chemicals associated with E-waste. Most electronic devicescontain a printed wiring board and battery, and these and other components maycontain hazardous materials such as lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, arsenic,beryllium, nickel, zinc, copper, cadmium, and flame retardants. Each CRT(cathode ray tube) contains approximately 4 to 8 pounds of lead,3 which correlatesto 300 million pounds of lead from the 50 million computers estimated to becomeobsolete each year. Approximately 70 percent of the heavy metals in municipalsolid waste landfills are estimated to come from electronics discards.4 Heavymetals such as lead and mercury are highly toxic substances that can cause well-documented adverse health effects, particularly to children and developingfetuses.

Regulation of E-waste by RCRA

E-waste is not explicitly regulated as hazardous waste at the national level. However, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C wasestablished to ensure that hazardous waste is managed in a manner that isprotective of human health and the environment. Accordingly, hazardous wastedisposed in a landfill must be disposed at designated hazardous waste landfillswith additional regulatory controls, rather than municipal solid waste landfills. However, hazardous waste from households and businesses generating hazardouswaste below the defined regulatory threshold may dispose of their waste atmunicipal solid waste landfills.

One way in which hazardous wastes may be defined under RCRA is theirpotential for leaching of hazardous chemicals. Among E-waste chemicals thathave been tested, lead has been shown to exceed the leachate levels for cathoderay tubes, and OSW is currently finalizing a rule to define acceptable managementstandards for these devices. OSW is currently investigating which other types ofE-waste, such as LCDs, computers, and keyboards, could present hazardouscharacteristics.

3

Scope and Methodology

We conducted our program evaluation from November 2003 through April 2004. To achieve our objectives, we interviewed EPA staff from OSW; the Office ofPrevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances; and Regions 3, 5, 9, and 10. External stakeholder interviews were held with States and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs). States were selected to include E-waste programs invarying degrees of implementation, and NGOs were selected based on knowninterest or involvement in E-waste issues. States interviewed were:

• California • Florida• Illinois• Maryland• Minnesota• New York

NGOs interviewed were:

• Electronic Industries Alliance • Hewlett-Packard • International Association of Electronics Recyclers • National Recycling Coalition • Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

In order to answer our evaluation questions, we asked Regions, States, and otherstakeholders a series of structured questions. We also reviewed numerousdocuments, web sites, and publications. State legislative E-waste data werecompiled by examining existing compilations of State E-waste progress,combined with direct review of State web sites. A compilation of EPA projectswas prepared by developing and forwarding to OSW a spreadsheet of knownprojects. OSW staff then verified the data, included new projects, and added grantcosts and full-time employee estimates.

We performed our evaluation in accordance with Government Auditing Standards,issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.

5 OSW defines Product Stewardship as “an emerging environmental philosophy which holds that all who

make, distribute, consume, and dispose of products should share the responsibility of reducing theirenvironmental impacts.”

5

Chapter 2EPA’s Projects Lack Defined Goals and Coordination

In response to the growing challenge of E-waste, OSW has implemented orparticipated in many recent projects that have enhanced the general awareness ofE-waste issues and included a wide range of stakeholders. However, the potentialbenefits of these projects have not been fully realized because the projects havenot been implemented or coordinated in support of a clear set of program goalsand measures of effect. In addition, OSW has not finalized a long-delayedrulemaking on the regulation of CRTs, and was forced to withdraw from its ownhigh-visibility product stewardship initiative due to potential cooperativeagreement violations. This could impact EPA’s leadership credibility in thedevelopment of national solutions to E-waste problems. Due to its incomplete actions related to addressing E-waste, OSW cannot ensure the human health andthe environment risks associated with E-waste are being adequately addressed.

Overall E-waste Goals Have Not Been Defined

OSW has been recognized for raising the awareness of E-waste as a significantenvironmental issue, and for including a wide range of stakeholders in its E-wasteprojects. OSW implemented or participated in these projects voluntarily as aresult of their recognition of a developing problem, and not as the result of anymandate. Further, stakeholders we interviewed were complimentary of OSW’scompetence, enthusiasm, and dedication. However, OSW’s effectiveness hasbeen hampered by a lack of definition of program goals.

The goals of the E-waste program have never been formally defined, other than draft goals developed under the auspices of the Product Stewardship5 programwithin OSW. OSW’s internal draft Strategy for Product Stewardship ofElectronics, developed in 2001 and updated in 2004, includes the following goalsshown in Table 2-1:

Table 2-1: Goals in Draft Strategy for Product Stewardship of Electronics

1. Increase reuse and recycling of used electronics.

2. Ensure that management of electronics is safe and environmentally sound.

3. Foster a life cycle approach to product stewardship, including environmentally-conscious

design, manufacturing, and toxics reduction for new electronic products.

4. Provide Federal leadership on government procurement and management of electronics.

6

Figure 1 - EPA E-waste Projects (Source: http://www.ofee.gov/es/projects.html)

Ideally, program goals should drive the projects, performance measures, and datathat support those goals, as implied in the OSW 2003-2008 strategic planningdocument. Program goals should be defined through a strategic planning processthat links goals with well-defined strategies, human capital, action plans, andperformance results. This has not been the case in the implementation of EPA’smany E-waste projects (see Figure 1). Most stakeholders interviewed wereunaware of any OSW E-waste goals. OSW states that most of its E-waste projectsare designed to encourage and catalyze voluntary activity by governments,industry, and consumers and that formal processes do not characterize theseefforts. Specifically, OSW indicates that while they usually enter into projectswith particular goals in mind, they do not typically establish performancemeasures without input and concurrence from the stakeholders who will beinstrumental in achieving these results.

Figure 1 illustrates the various EPA projects focused on the design, purchase,reuse, and disposal of electronics. There is no clear relationship between theselife cycle stages, OSW’s draft Product Stewardship goals, other EPA draftElectronics Sector goals, or OSW’s classification of its E-waste projects. Whilethe draft goals represent an effort to define program goals, they are general andnot associated with performance measures.

Central to the discussion of E-waste goals is the definition of an OSW “E-wasteProgram.” An OSW E-waste program has not been defined as such, and effortsare dispersed among various OSW divisions and other EPA offices.

7

E-waste Projects Developed Without Apparent Coordination

EPA has spent over $2 million and used nearly 10 full-time equivalent staff inover 30 E-waste projects, pilot programs, and grants, but these efforts have notbeen well-coordinated or their products clearly defined. Almost all of these costsand staff expenditures have been incurred since 2000, and do not includerulemaking activities such as the CRT rule or in-kind staff contributions fromstakeholders. Many of the projects have been small regional pilots or grants, butOSW staff have not clarified whether regions or headquarters have ultimateprogram or financial responsibility for them. The funding and staffingcommitment presumably reflects EPA’s recognition of the importance of E-waste. However, the lack of project coordination and the absence of goals have resultedin a general lack of understanding by stakeholders of what EPA is trying toachieve.

In late 2002, OSW grouped many of its voluntary programs into waste-typesectors under a national effort known as the Resource Conservation Challenge(RCC), a major OSW initiative regarding E-waste. RCC strives to encourage life-cycle materials management, pollution prevention, energy conservation, andreduction of priority chemicals through voluntary partnerships with industry. Many pre-existing programs and pilots were claimed under RCC at its launch, andOSW staff are still working to clarify the relationships between these olderprograms and the RCC. Several Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and ToxicSubstances programs are included in RCC. The RCC uses a data-driven approachto developing performance measures and goals of the Government Performanceand Results Act, and RCC staff have said that the Electronics sector is one of themost advanced waste streams currently being tracked, with draft goals expected inthe fall of 2004. Several RCC electronics projects underway are in Table 2-2:

Table 2-2: Examples of RCC Electronics Projects Underway

Federal Electronics

Challenge

This is a voluntary partnership program among Federal agencies and

facilities to manage electronic assets throughout three life stages:

acquisition and procurement, operation and maintenance, and end-of-

life disposal. The pilot phase was launched in May 2003 with nine

agency partners, and full roll-out is expected in the fall of 2004.

Electronic Product

Environmental

Assessment Tool

This is a grant-based, multi-stakeholder project to develop and

implement a tool for evaluating the environmental performance of

electronic products. This tool is still under development, but is

expected to be completed by September 2004. The tool will not be an

explicit label, but should have similar market effects.

Plug-in to E-cycling Plug-in is a series of pilots testing approaches to shared responsibility

for end-of-life management of electronics among manufacturers,

retailers, government, and consumers.

Plug-in follows from an E-cycling project in Region 3 from 2001-2002 thatpiloted government-industry collaboration for residential electronics collection

8

and recycling. The project created 9 permanent collection programs and collectedover 2,700 tons of E-waste at a cost of $1.1 million. OSW staff indicated theyview Plug-in as an interim solution to properly recycling electronics until anational solution can be defined and implemented. It is unclear if outputs or datafrom the pilots have been pre-defined, or if any of the efforts can be scaled to anational level at a reasonable cost. The next Plug-in pilot began in January 2004in Region 1, and two additional pilots are being developed in Minnesota and thePacific Northwest. However, despite these efforts, several stakeholders have saidthey did not understand the purpose of this program or were not aware of it.

OSW’s Leadership Credibility Has Been Impacted

Due to delays in rulemaking efforts, EPA withdrawal from a product stewardshipinitiative, and limited OSW actions to act in an anticipatory manner, OSW’sleadership credibility in addressing E-waste has been impacted.

The CRT Rule

The CRT Rule was a direct output of the Common-Sense Initiative ElectronicsSector, which met from 1994 through 1998. The rulemaking process began inOSW in 1998, but is now not projected to be finalized until 2005. EPA staff haveindicated that the delays in the rulemaking might have been due to competition forstaff resources with other mandatory rulemaking efforts. Regardless, the years ofdelay have frustrated the participants. We were unable to determine the extent towhich these delays are due to factors OSW has management control over.

National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative

The National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) convened inApril 2001 as a multi-stakeholder dialogue for the purpose of developing anational electronics product stewardship system. A large number of stakeholdersfrom manufacturers, States, and non-government organizations were involved inthe process, funded by OSW through a cooperative agreement with the Universityof Tennessee for approximately $225,000 from April 2001 through August 2004.

Initially, stakeholders viewed the review of regulations as one of several priorityissues to be discussed, and believed the dialogue should focus on State and localregulatory issues. However, as early as March 2002, industry stakeholders weredivided on a national financing system, and a collective decision was made to“look into outlining the elements of possible federal legislation to facilitate therecycling of used electronics.” At that time, OSW was assured by EPA’s Officeof General Counsel that these discussions were not in violation of any cooperativeagreement anti-lobbying provisions.

In October 2003, the stakeholders developed a draft Memorandum ofUnderstanding that contained elements of Federal legislation as well as the intent

9

of the parties involved to seek legislation. Upon review of the Memorandum ofUnderstanding, the Office of General Counsel rescinded its prior approval ofOSW’s participation, stating that sections outlined activities clearly in preparationfor an effort to engage in unallowable lobbying. Accordingly, OSW withdrew itsparticipation and funding in December 2003, and the last NEPSI meeting held inFebruary 2004 was funded by the participants. NEPSI participants viewed OSW’sparticipation and leadership as essential, and OSW’s withdrawal from the processas a critical loss that reflected poorly on EPA.

OSW Has Not Demonstrated Ability to Act in an Anticipatory Manner

The volume of E-waste is rapidly growing and changing as new technologies areintroduced. For example, some new technologies on the horizon are:

• Nanotechnology - developing materials at the molecular level.• Microelectromechanical sensors - tiny wireless monitors. • Interactive multimedia - electronic and interactive news delivery. • Organic light-emitting diodes - display screens that directly emit light.• 3-D displays - 3-D built into the screen display.

This constant change emphasizes the need for OSW to anticipate changes in thewaste stream and provide an appropriate regulatory response in a timely manner.However, while staff have indicated that anticipating new waste streams is a partof their ongoing decision-making process, OSW has not demonstrated its abilityto do so related to technological changes that introduce new waste streams. TheCRT Rule was a timely initial response that had the potential to demonstrateOSW’s leadership and foresight, but the delay of several years has had theopposite effect. This, coupled with OSW’s withdrawal from NEPSI and thegeneral confusion about OSW’s E-waste goals, has left stakeholders unconvincedthat OSW can respond to developing issues in a timely manner.

States Taking Actions But Dissatisfied with Lack of NationalSolutions

The increasing concern about the management of E-waste is illustrated in therange and number of legislative and regulatory approaches States have adopted toaddress this topic. Figure 2 highlights the status of States’ E-waste legislation andregulation as of January 2004, and indicates that 31 out of 50 States haveintroduced or passed E-waste legislation or adopted specific E-waste regulations.Pending and passed State legislation and regulations include a variety ofapproaches, as shown in the following actions taken by States:

10

Figure 2 - State E-waste legislation (Source: OIG analysis)

• Universal waste classification for CRTs. This is the broadest regulatoryapproach, allowing longer storage and accumulation times for CRTs, largercollectible volumes, and reduced tracking requirements than typically requiredfor RCRA hazardous waste. Although CRTs must still be handled ashazardous waste, States have adopted this approach to attempt to reduce theburden of proper disposal and recycling. States that have taken this approachinclude Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina,Ohio, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.

• Task forces to study the issue or develop a State program. Task forcestypically request a study commission within State waste divisions or create anexternal stakeholder group to recommend options for the legislature, usuallyby a specific deadline. Task forces are underway in Georgia, Maine, NewJersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

• Landfill bans. By the end of 2003, landfill bans in 4 States (California,Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota) restricted CRTs from any source fromdisposal in a municipal solid waste landfills, and bans were pending in10 other States.

• Funding for recycling/collection infrastructure. This has allowed States tofund the development of electronics recycling infrastructure, usually throughsmall grants. Some States have considered this an important preparation forproperly handling the impending volumes of E-waste, especially shouldnational or State legislation be passed that restricts disposal. Such funding hasbeen disbursed in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, and Massachusetts.

11

• Manufacturer take-back. Take-back requires producers to develop, finance,and implement an E-waste recovery system for the collection, handling,processing, recovery, reuse, and recycling of the devices they sell in the State. Manufacturers may pay a fee on their product sales that can be pooled anddistributed to recyclers when the equipment reaches them. Take-back ispending in Maine, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Texas, andWashington.

• Consumer education campaigns. Legislatures have approved educationalprograms and, in some cases, accompanying funding, to promote properE-waste recycling and reuse among the public, schools, and businesses. New Jersey and Colorado have already adopted such measures, while bills arepending in Nebraska and South Carolina.

• Advanced recycling fees. Advanced recycling fees are similar tomanufacturer take-back, only the fee assessed on product sales is a visible onepassed along to consumers and government – rather than manufacturers. These fees are pending in six States, although California is the only one set tobegin implementation.

• Hazardous material phase-out. This type of legislation restrictsmanufacturers from selling electronic equipment containing one or more listedhazardous substances after 2007. It is linked to the European Union’sReduction of Hazardous Substance directive (see following section). California is the only State with a direct link to this, although a bill beingconsidered in Washington contains hazardous material restrictions.

State officials we interviewed, as well as EPA staff and those from non-governmental organizations, indicated that States were dissatisfied with theFederal status of E-waste regulation. This dissatisfaction is due in part to thefailure to define a national electronics product stewardship solution in NEPSI, thelack of definition of visible E-waste goals, the lack of guidance on how E-waste isFederally regulated, and uncertainty about the rationale behind the myriad of E-waste projects. States are looking to EPA for a national solution. Stakeholdershave also expressed concerns that delays in a national product stewardshipsolution ultimately impact State involvement in the development of such asolution; as States implement their own product stewardship mechanisms, theirperspective naturally changes from creating an optimal solution to ensuring thatthe national solution does not negatively impact their State system. Implementation of a national E-waste solution would potentially simplify States’efforts and provide a more manageable regulatory picture for industry.

United States Lagging Behind International E-waste Efforts

All individuals we interviewed believed that the United States is lagging behindinternational efforts in E-waste regulation. E-waste management is being

12

addressed through current and pending legislation in other countries and throughmultilateral guidance, agreements, and treaties. Although many of theseinternational initiatives have only recently been passed, and most have not beenfully implemented, several contain innovative approaches to reduce hazardouschemicals in electronic products and recycle used electronics. For example:

• The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements ofHazardous Waste, adopted in 1989, requires a manifest and notificationsystem for hazardous waste export, and allows transboundary movements ofhazardous wastes only upon prior written notification by the exporting state tothe authorities of the importing or transporting states. Discarded electronicequipment is subject to these requirements but not for United States handlers,because the United States is one of three countries that have not ratified theConvention.

• The European Union has gone far beyond notification-and-consent procedureswith its Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Reduction ofHazardous Substances Directives, passed in January 2003. The WasteElectrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, broad in scope, covers virtuallyall consumer electronic equipment and requires manufacturers to takefinancial responsibility for the end-of-life recovery of their products using thebest available treatment technology. European Union member states must usemanufacturer financing to implement collection systems for electronicequipment from end-users, and must collect annual data on the volumes ofequipment marketed, collected, reused and recycled. The NEPSI projectattempted to develop an electronic product stewardship program that wouldhave been the United States counterpart to the Waste Electrical and ElectronicEquipment Directive.

• The European Union’s Reduction of Hazardous Substances Directiveprohibits the use of six toxic chemicals in electrical and electronic equipmentby July 2006: lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium,polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers(PBDE). However, some materials containing lead and mercury, such as thosein computer displays and CRTs, are exempt. Exceptions may also apply tosubstances deemed technically or scientifically unavoidable. There is noUnited States counterpart to the Reduction of Hazardous SubstancesDirective, but there is general agreement among stakeholders that the UnitedStates should benefit directly from this directive because manufacturers arelikely to market the same product lines in the European Union and the UnitedStates.

• The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development publishedtechnical guidance on Environmentally Sound Management for used and scrappersonal computers in February 2003, describing standards for refurbishment,

13

dismantling, material recovery, component treatment, energy recovery,transport, and packaging.

• The Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an organization created byCanada, Mexico, and the United States to address regional environmentalconcerns, is currently discussing a voluntary challenge to meet the EuropeanUnion’s Reduction of Hazardous Substances Directive in North America. A draft proposal introduced in 2004 met with some resistance from industry,but industry representatives have agreed to continue the dialogue. Initiallyintended for adoption in June 2004, participants now estimate that thechallenge may begin in September 2004.

• Japan, Australia, Canada, Denmark, and Taiwan have taken steps to promoterecycling and product stewardship. Australia and Canada are developingvoluntary product stewardship strategies through public-private workinggroups that include government representatives and industry associations. Japan’s Specified Home Appliance Recycling Law, implemented in 2001,requires take-back for manufacturers of electrical and electronic goods.

OSW has been active in the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) development of a framework for assuring theenvironmentally sound management of wastes, including E-waste. Specifically,OSW has led the OECD effort to develop guidelines on environmentally soundmanagement for used personal computers. That technical guidance document wasissued in February 2003. Further, under the Basel Convention, the United States(OSW) is the most active nation involved in the development of environmentallysound management guidelines for the management of used cell phones, and ischairing or co-chairing several of the workgroups. OSW is also very active indevelopment of a new Basel initiative for addressing end-of-life personalcomputers. As part of this new Basel effort, the existing OECD guidelines, whosedevelopment was led by OSW, are being recognized as a useful base.

Conclusions

OSW has responded to the E-waste challenge, and shown needed leadership byfunding and implementing a range of projects over the past several years, thathave raised the awareness of E-waste as a significant environmental issue. However, the lack of definition of an E-waste program, goals, and performancemeasures, coupled with lack of project coordination and project delays, hasprevented the development of a cohesive effort to address the problem. This haseroded stakeholders’ confidence in EPA’s E-waste leadership and indicates that decisive and rapid leadership in developing and implementing national E-wastesolutions is important. Otherwise, the continued implementation of multipledifferent State E-waste solutions is likely.

14

Recommendations

We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste andEmergency Response:

2.1 Define its E-waste program, goals, and performance measures, andcommunicate them to stakeholders. These should be synchronized withthe RCC Electronics Sector Government Performance and Results Actperformance measures currently under development by OSW.

2.2 Within the limits of OSW’s jurisdiction and authority, ensure, andcommunicate to stakeholders, that all E-waste efforts are clearly linked tothe defined program goals and coordinated by OSW with other EPAoffices to ensure compatibility of all projects and progress towards thedefined goals. All projects should clearly define the relevant goal(s) andassociated quantitative performance measures. The Federal ElectronicsChallenge and the Electronic Products Environmental Assessment ToolProject should continue to receive a high level of emphasis to ensure thatthey remain on schedule and can be used to leverage the reduced toxicityof electronic devices through preferential purchasing.

2.3 Ensure the development of a national product stewardship solution forelectronics.

2.4 Finalize the CRT rule as soon as possible.

2.5 In conjunction with stakeholders, evaluate ongoing industry trends toidentify potential future E-waste issues.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

OSW generally agreed with our recommendations. They recognize that electronicwaste has been and will continue to be an important area for the Agency toarticulate its goals and measures as well as its plans. OSW believes that their E-waste goals are appropriate and that their projects are designed to align with oneof these goals. However, OSW acknowledges that they have not fullycommunicated the goals of their individual projects and how they fit into anoverall program. OSW highlighted the following efforts to improve:

• Commit to continuing to communicate their goals. • Describe goals and strategies on the RCC Electronics Sector web site, and

synchronize project and RCC performance measures.• Develop a draft product stewardship framework as a part of the development

of an overall RCC strategy. • Quantify the decreased use of toxics in electronics and increased recycling and

translate these changes into measurable environmental benefits.

15

• Hold an E-Cycling Summit in early 2005 to bring together stakeholders toevaluate the progress of their projects, share achievements and data, identifyfurther information needs, update plans, and update performance targets.

We modified report language and recommendations in response to the Agency’scomments and discussion at a followup meeting. While we state that OSW hasnot defined E-waste goals and performance measures, they believe that these havebeen defined but not effectively communicated. We believe that the focus oncommunication is an appropriate response, and the proposed E-Cycling Summitshould be an effective mechanism for obtaining stakeholder input on E-wastegoals and performance measures.

17

Chapter 3Majority of E-waste May Be Disposed

in Municipal Landfills

Much of the anticipated volume of E-waste may ultimately be disposed of inmunicipal solid waste landfills, even though components of E-waste, such asCRTs, are defined as hazardous waste. This can occur due to the existing RCRAhousehold hazardous waste exclusion, which allows households to dispose ofhazardous waste in municipal landfills. The regulation of household hazardouswaste was not intended by Congress. This exclusion could potentially undermineany efforts to regulate E-waste at the national level.

Household E-waste Disposal Allowed in Municipal Landfills

Hazardous waste generated by households and hazardous waste from businessesgenerating less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per month (conditionally-exempt small quantity generators) have been excluded by regulation from RCRA. The estimated number of conditionally-exempt small quantity generators is in thehundreds of thousands, and there are approximately 100 million households. According to EPA, some estimates for ultimate disposal of E-waste as householdhazardous waste are as high as 90 percent.

EPA has existing authority to modify the scope of the household hazardous wasteexclusion through the rulemaking process. When asked about the appropriatenessof the exclusion, interviewees responded with the entire range of answers, fromeliminating the exclusion to keeping it as written. Some interviewees indicatedthe regulation of E-waste from households was desirable but unworkable.

Some States have taken action to regulate E-waste from household sources. California continues to regulate hazardous waste irrespective of its source, anddoes not recognize the household exclusion of E-waste. In California, themunicipal landfills are responsible for preventing disposal of E-waste at theirlocations. Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota have banned CRTs fromdisposal in municipal landfills irrespective of the CRT source, which effectivelyexcludes CRTs from household hazardous waste exemption. CRT landfill banshave been proposed in 10 additional States, and are still pending final decision.

If an appreciable volume of E-waste is disposed as household hazardous waste,this could minimize the impact of any regulatory efforts to increase reuse andrecycling.

18

Conclusions

The volume of E-waste disposed at municipal solid waste landfills could representa significant portion of the E-waste universe. This becomes a concern in light ofevidence that some components of E-waste are defined as hazardous. Highlandfill disposal rates of E-waste could minimize the impact of EPA efforts toincrease E-waste recycling and reuse. This is particularly likely if economicfactors encourage disposal over recycling. However, the regulation of E-wastefrom household sources could create an unmanageable, national, regulatoryrequirement. An assessment of the volume of E-waste disposed in municipalsolid waste landfills would help inform EPA decisions to consider alternativeapproaches for the management of E-waste, including modifications to the scopeof the household hazardous waste exclusion.

Recommendation


3.1 Within OSW’s jurisdiction and authority, ensure that the volume ofE-waste disposed in municipal solid waste landfills is estimated at leastbiennially and communicated to stakeholders with other E-waste datacollected in support of E-waste goals and performance measures.


OSW agrees that they need to encourage stored E-waste to move toward recyclingrather than disposal, and also believes that much of the current E-waste volume isin storage. They state that future updates to the Characterization report will takeaccount of more recent and sophisticated estimates of E-waste storage. OSWbelieves that, based on a recent study, E-waste disposed in municipal solidlandfills will not pose an environmental risk. Their primary interest in increasingthe recycling of E-waste is based on resource conservation. They also disagreedwith report language regarding household hazardous waste and made suggestionswhich were incorporated as appropriate.

19

Figure 3 - Consumer Electronics Life Cycle(Source: EPA - Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts andFigures)

Chapter 4EPA Does Not Collect Adequate Data on E-waste

Existing data collected on E-waste are inadequate to support programmanagement decisions. Data on each possible component of the life cycle arecritical to evaluate the success of ongoing projects and the scope of the problem. However, data requirements and collection mechanisms have not been defined toaddress the problem. Consequently, any program efforts are forced to rely uponspeculative data. In addition to the lack of adequate national data, EPA does nothave adequate data on the disposition of its own computers. EPA needs adequateinformation to monitor the scope of the E-waste problem and track progress.

Data Not Routinely Collected

OSW does not collect sufficient data to clearly define the E-waste problem andtrack progress in addressing the problem. A primary reason is the lack of definedgoals and performance measures, which facilitate quantification (see Chapter 2 fora discussion of the lack of goals). The potentially high cost of data collection andmaintenance underscores the need to explicitly define the uses of data prior tocollection. Well-defined program goals and performance measures will ensurethat only necessary data are collected in the appropriate formats, level of detail,and frequency.

The one ongoing source of E-waste data is the Consumer Electronics in MunicipalSolid Waste appendix of the OSW Waste Characterization Report. In a life cycleflow chart from the 2001 report (see Figure 3), each arrow indicates the dataneeded to adequatelymeasure the problem,define current status, andmeasure progress. Whilethis report appears tomake efficient use ofdata from existingsources and clearly statesthe underlyingassumptions, the reportrelies on pre-existing,readily available datasources instead ofidentifying andcollecting the requisitedata. OSW staff indicatethat the existing E-wastedata sources were “soft”

20

and some of the non-EPA organizations interviewed did not agree with theassumptions used in the Waste Characterization Report.

OSW has made progress in defining E-waste data requirements with the recenteCycling project in EPA Region 3, and is currently developing data standards forthe implementation of other Plug-In pilots. This project has explicitly recognizedthe need for high-quality, useful data. Further, the RCC (see Chapter 2) appearscommitted to the collection of data in support of performance measures andGovernment Performance and Results Act goals; data collected for the ElectronicsSector of this effort may provide some of the needed data.

The lack of up-to-date data is likely due to the fact that defining data requirementsand collecting sound data can be an expensive process and using existing data ismore expedient. However, the lack of definition of data needs and theimplementation of mechanisms to collect those data impairs the ability of OSW tomonitor the scope of the E-waste problem.

Disposition of EPA’s Own Surplus Computers Unclear

As part of our efforts to evaluate the data EPA collects on E-waste, we askedRegions 3 and 9 Facilities Management staff, as well as Headquarters FacilityManagement and Services Division staff, to account for recent surplus computers. Region 3 stated it donated computers to schools and non-profit organizations asauthorized under Executive Order 12999. The donations occurred after EPAremoved the hard drives, to comply with a court-ordered injunction against EPAthat prohibited the disposal of computer property in order to protect potentiallyuseful data sought in a Freedom of Information Act request. Region 9 has beenstoring its surplus computers since 2000 in compliance with the injunction. Headquarters donates excess devices to schools and non-Federal organizations ortransfers them to the General Services Administration.

No facility management office in Region 3 or 9 was able to provide more thanestimates of the number of excess computers stored or recently disposed. Region 3 Facility Services Branch did not have exact records, and informationwas only obtained through a contract work order description outlining contractorwork specifications for the cleansing of computer hard drives prior to donation. Headquarters prepares three reports at the request of the General ServicesAdministration on EPA property sold, exchanged, or donated to schools and non-Federal recipients; however, we found the information in these reports to beinadequate to quantify the numbers or disposition of surplus EPA computers.

We also noted that Headquarters does not appear to provide Regional offices withguidance on how to properly recycle or dispose of broken equipment. Interviewswith Facilities Management staff indicated some devices were thrown out in thetrash.

21

Although not directly managed by OSW or RCC, the Recycling Electronics andAsset Disposition contract – initiated by the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, andToxic Substances; the Office of Acquisition Management; and the Office ofEnvironmental Information – should assist EPA and other Federal agencies inmanaging the end-of-life phase. This Government Wide Acquisition Contract,which was expected to be awarded in the summer of 2004, will provide theGovernment sector with a procurement tool to properly manage electronicinventories and recycle and properly dispose of excess or obsolete electronicpersonal property in an environmentally responsible manner. The contract placesa strong emphasis on data destruction/sanitization and on creating an audit trail toreport on the equipment's final destination. EPA staff are anticipating thedevelopment of this project to provide mechanisms to quantify the disposition ofEPA’s surplus personal computers. On March 19, 2004, the Office ofManagement and Budget designated EPA as the authorized Federal agency tomanage this Government Wide Acquisition Contract and to handle the dispositionof E-waste for all federal departments and agencies.

Conclusions

EPA does not currently collect adequate E-waste data, which limits its ability todemonstrate the effectiveness of its E-waste efforts. This is due in part to the lackof an explicit definition of E-waste goals and, therefore, the lack of data needs insupport of those goals. Additionally, EPA cannot readily track the disposition ofits own surplus computers, which impacts its credibility in implementing nationalE-waste management strategies.

Recommendations


4.1 Identify and communicate to stakeholders the relevant data needed insupport of the E-waste goals and performance measures, as defined inRecommendation 2.1. To ensure the proper definition of required data,OSW could convene a stakeholder working group to define the necessarydata, frequency of collection, and most efficient and effective mechanismsfor the collection of the data.

4.2 Work with the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, andthe Office of Acquisition Management, to ensure the implementation ofthe Recycling Electronics and Asset Disposition Government-wideacquisition contract. OSW should ensure that adequate data are collectedto provide appropriate end-of-life measurements of EPA’s computers. Inthe interim, OSW, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and ToxicSubstances, and the Office of Acquisition Management should ensure thedisposition of EPA’s computers is in accordance with its E-waste goals,

22

develop mechanisms to track computer purchases and disposition Agency-wide, and develop effective communication mechanisms with regionaloffices to ensure that the Agency is adhering to its own (as well asapplicable State) hazardous waste regulations.


OSW agrees that adequate data are essential for the development of goals andperformance measures for their E-waste initiatives. They feel that their existinggoals and performance measures are based on adequate data, and they also haveadditional actions underway to supplement these data. Discussions of datarequirements with stakeholders, as proposed by OSW as a topic in their 2005E-Cycling summit, should address our concerns. As appropriate, additionalmodifications were made to the report and recommendations based on OSW’scomments.

23

Appendix A

Agency Response to Draft Evaluation Report

August 1, 2004

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: OIG Evaluation of EPA Activities on Waste Electronics Assignment No. 2004-000002

FROM: Thomas P. Dunne/s/Acting Assistant AdministratorOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

TO: Carolyn Copper Director of Program Evaluation: Hazardous Waste Issues

This memorandum responds to the draft evaluation of the EPA Office of the InspectorGeneral on EPA’s electronic waste programs and regulations, dated June 30, 2004.

We appreciate your report and the work that lies behind it. We have carefully reviewedthe report and agree with many of the recommendations and disagree with some. Werespectfully request that the authors of this report carefully review our responses and revise thereport accordingly.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft. If you need additional information,you may contact Thea McManus, Associate Director of the Municipal and Industrial Solid WasteDivision, Office of Solid Waste, at (703) 308-8738 or Clare Lindsay, Office of Solid Waste, at(703) 308-7266.

cc: Matt Hale, Director, Office Director, OSW Maria Vickers, Deputy Office Director, OSW Robert Dellinger, Division Director, HWID Lillian Bagus, Division Director, MISWD Thea McManus, Associate Division Director, MISWD

24

MULTIPLE ACTIONS TAKEN TO ADDRESS ELECTRONICS WASTE, BUT EPA NEEDSTO PROVIDE CLEAR NATIONAL DIRECTION

EPA Comments on the Office of Inspector General’s Draft ReportAssignment No. 2004-000002

July 30, 2004

This document presents EPA’s responses to the major findings and recommendations made in theabove-referenced report.

As a general matter, we are concerned that the Draft Report contains numerous unattributedstatistics. We recommend that the Final Draft cite sources for all statistics presented.

CHAPTER 1

OIG states on page 2 that E-waste is not explicitly regulated as hazardous waste at thenational level in spite of the fact that RCRA “was established to ensure that hazardous waste isdisposed at designated hazardous waste landfills with additional regulatory controls, rather thanmunicipal solid waste landfills.” We wish to take issue with this statement; as explained later, it wasCongress’ intent in RCRA that household hazardous waste be excluded from hazardous wasteregulation.

As discussed more fully in our response to Chapter 3 of the OIG report, we have determinedthat CRTs from TVs and computers frequently exhibit a hazardous characteristic. We are reviewingwhether other common E-wastes also exhibit a hazardous characteristic. However, CRTs or anyother E-waste that exhibits a hazardous characteristic that is generated by a household orconditionally exempt small quantity generator is, under Federal law, permitted under RCRA to go toa municipal solid waste landfill. Moreover, despite suggestions by the OIG in its Draft Report thatdisposal of any household E-waste in municipal landfills could be harmful to health and theenvironment (e.g., statement on page 2 re the “potential leaching of hazardous chemicals in thegroundwater” associated with E-waste), we do not have evidence to support this concern. Nevertheless, we agree with OIG about the need to recycle electronics for resource conservationpurposes.

Also on page 2, the OIG asserts that “lead has been shown to exceed the leachate levels for awide variety of electronic devices including CRTs, LCDs, computers, keyboards, mice, VCRs andeven remote controls. According to EPA’s testing procedure, most electronic devices may thereforebe characterized as hazardous waste.” As discussed more fully in our response to Chapter 3, EPA islooking at which other types of E-waste could present hazardous characteristics. This work is not yetcomplete, so we are not at this time prepared to agree with the statement that “most electronicdevices may…be… hazardous waste.” Indeed, it should be recalled that EPA has already exemptedcircuit boards from the definition of hazardous waste if these items are bound for recycling. If it isthe circuit boards that could cause some electronic products to demonstrate a hazardouscharacteristic, this exemption may already apply to these products when sent for recycling.

25

CHAPTER 2

E-WASTE GOALS HAVE NOT BEEN DEFINED

OIG states that EPA’s E-waste goals have never been formally defined; that they are simplydraft internal goals. Moreover, OIG states that there is no relationship between EPA’s linkage of itsE-waste projects to the life cycle stages of electronic products and various other articulations of EPA’s goals, including the draft strategic plan for E-waste, and the draft RCC Electronic Sectorgoals.

In 2001, EPA articulated four broad goals for E-waste prevention and management. Thesegoals are listed on Page 5, Table 2-1 of the Draft OIG Report. The Office of Solid Waste (OSW)acknowledges that these goals have not been shared in the form of a final, published strategic plan. Instead, we have shared our goals in many varied venues over the last several years. Examples ofwhere and when we communicated our goals, include: 1) E-Scrap 2003 Recycling Conference; and2) the IEEE 2004 International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment.

Each of our individual E-waste projects is designed to align with one or more of our statedgoals. Moreover, each project has its own specific goals. The project-specific goals are presented inindividual project web sites. Examples include: 1) Plug In -- Give Americans more opportunitiesto safely, conveniently, consistently, and cost-efficiently recycle their old electronics and promotesafe recycling of electronics once they are collected (www.plugintoecycling.org); and 2) FEC –Achieve cost-effective, environmentally responsible electronics management in the Federalgovernment (www.federalelectronicschallenge.net). Taken together, all of EPA’s E-waste projectsstrategically address the full life-cycle of electronic products: from design, to purchase, to use, todiscard, to recycling.

We appreciate OIG’s concern, however, that we have not fully communicated the goals of theindividual projects and how they fit into an overall program. We believe we have made importantsteps in this regard since OIG conducted its interviews, and we will continue to work on clearlycommunicating our goals.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES HAVE NOT BEEN DEFINED

OIG indicates that OSW’s draft goals are not associated with performance measures. It isimportant to understand that most of EPA’s E-waste projects are designed to encourage and catalyzevoluntary activity by governments, industry, and consumers. While we usually enter into projectswith particular goals in mind, we do not typically establish performance measures without input andconcurrence from the stakeholders who will be instrumental in achieving these results.

As the projects become more developed and paths for further action are chosen, EPA andprogram partners agree upon quantifiable performance measures. This is exactly what happened inthe case of all of our major projects related to E-waste. Plug-In is an good example. Each Plug-Inpartner signs an MOU with EPA setting out numeric goals for the number of e-cycling events to beheld by that partner. The program as a whole also sets targets for the number of outreach andeducational efforts completed. On an annual basis, partners report their results to EPA, including thenumber of collection events held, units recycled, and weight of material recycled. Plug-In also trackscost, volume, and other data associated with each of its ongoing pilot projects. Thus far, in the 3-

26

week take-back pilot conducted by Staples in April in the Pacific Northwest (a catalyst for thenationwide Office Depot program now underway), Staples collected approximately 3,000 usedcomputers and donated approximately $25,000 to local schools. The other pilots are just gettingunderway and will be reporting similar data upon their completion.

Last year, EPA, through the RCC Electronics Cluster, recognized the importance of setting anational recycling goal for electronics. At that time, the NEPSI Dialogue was still underway. TheElectronics Cluster, consisting of varied stakeholders, decided that as long as NEPSI was working onthis issue, it would have been premature to set a separate RCC electronics recycling goal. If theNEPSI process comes to a conclusion this year without closure on a goal, the Electronics Cluster willonce again take up the task of setting a national goal for electronics recovery.

In addition to our performance measures, OSW recently launched an evaluation of thebenefits of our electronics projects. With this kind of information, OSW not only will be able toquantify decreased use of toxics in electronics and increased recycling, but also translate thesechanges into measurable environmental benefits. This effort will also help us in ongoing efforts torefine our performance measures to ensure that we are achieving the greatest possible benefits.

E-WASTE PROJECTS DEVELOPED WITHOUT APPARENT COORDINATION

OIG suggests that EPA’s many E-waste projects over the last several years have not beenwell-coordinated, resulting in a general lack of understanding by stakeholders of what EPA is tryingto achieve. We appreciate the concerns of many stakeholders on this issue and are working toaddress them. Part of the challenge is the local nature of many electronic waste projects and themany different Federal, state and local agencies with interest in the issue. The proliferation of E-waste projects also attests to the complexity of the issues inherent in E-waste and the manyapproaches and solutions needed to address these issues, e.g., regulatory revisions to promote greaterrecycling, financing options, improved product and process design, safer recycling practices, datagathering and analysis, improved government procurement and end-of-life management, just to namea few. This proliferation of projects, in the context of voluntary efforts, is also a way to see whatworks and to be responsive to special needs identified by particular EPA regions.

To address these challenges, OSW, OPPT, ORD, and the Regional Offices have coordinatedclosely within EPA and with other agencies, such as GSA and OFEE, in the development of acomprehensive lifecycle-based approach to E-waste. We have held coordination calls regularly toensure that our joint efforts are complementary and not duplicative and to minimize the burden onstakeholders, particularly industry partners who were involved in multiple EPA efforts. An E-Cycling summit planned for the beginning of 2005 will bring together all stakeholders to evaluate theprogress of the Plug-In, EPEAT, and FEC programs, among others, to share achievements and data,identify further information needs, update plans, and update performance targets. We believe thisSummit will go a long way in addressing the issues OIG raises.

OIG also states that EPA spent over $6 million on E-waste projects, largely since 2000. Wewish to point out that the $6 million figure includes a series of Congressional set-asides totalingsome $3.8 million to West Virginia University and the Polymer Alliance Zone to increase recyclingof plastics from electronics waste. Subtracting these mandatory set-asides, the total would come to$2.2 million in EPA discretionary spending (not including rulemaking) over a period spanning from1997 to 2003.

27

RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Define E-waste program, goals, and performance measures, and communicate them tostakeholders. These should be synchronized with the RCC Electronics SectorGovernment Performance and Results Act performance measures currently underdevelopment by OSW.

RESPONSE

We believe that our current E-waste program, goals, and performance measures arereasonable within a voluntary program framework. Nevertheless, we recognize that electronic wastehas been, and will continue to be, an important area for the Agency to articulate its goals andmeasures, as well as its plans. Therefore, to ensure that the Agency’s efforts in this area areunderstood and clearly communicated, we plan to review the existing description of the ElectronicsCluster on the RCC website and make sure that our goals and strategies are fully explained on thiswebsite, and that this information is linked to our individual E-waste project websites. We will alsoperiodically review and update our goals and measures as the program develops. We will alsosynchronize our project performance measures with any performance measures ultimately developedby the RCC Electronics Sector.

2.2 Ensure that all E-waste efforts are clearly linked to the defined program goals andcoordinated by OSW with other EPA offices to ensure compatibility of all projects andprogress towards the defined goals. All projects should clearly define the relevantgoals(s) and associated quantitative performance measures. The Federal ElectronicsChallenge and the Electronics Products Environmental Assessment Tool Project shouldcontinue to receive a high level of emphasis to ensure that they remain on schedule andcan be used to leverage the reduced toxicity of electronic devices through preferentialpurchasing.

RESPONSE

We agree it is important that all of our E-waste projects be linked to clear goals, coordinatedwith other EPA offices and accompanied by quantitative performance measures. We believe that ourE-waste efforts to date have been clearly linked to the E-waste program goals and are compatiblewith each other. Also, quantitative performance measures are already in place for our ongoingprojects or under development in partnership with stakeholders. We will continue to assure that ourE-waste projects fit squarely with our broad E-waste goals and that the performance measures forthese projects are refined and coordinated with other measurement efforts such as those proceedingunder the RCC and GPRA. OSW also will continue to coordinate with OPPT/PPD to ensure that theFEC and the EPEAT projects receive a high level of emphasis.

OSW’S LEADERSHIP CREDIBILITY AT RISK

OIG points to delays in issuing the CRT final rule; EPA’s withdrawal from the NEPSIdialogue; and alleged failure by EPA to anticipate changes in E-waste and to provide an appropriateregulatory response as evidence that EPA’s leadership credibility is at risk or has been harmed.

28

We agree with OIG that EPA needs to provide credible leadership in the area of E-wastemanagement and recycling. We are pleased, therefore, to see continued participation by major multi-national stakeholders, key states and municipalities, and NGOs in NEPSI, the Plug-In program andEPEAT. Plug-In, for example, has expanded significantly over the past year, to include more than adozen private sector partners and 22 state and local government partners. We see this as evidencethat these programs continue to be perceived as important and valuable.

OSW is aware that it has taken longer than hoped to finalize the CRT rule and that this delayhas caused problems for some stakeholders. We are working hard to get the rule finalized in early2005. However, we do not agree that there is currently a lack of guidance for how CRTs arecurrently regulated under federal law. We specifically encourage states to adopt approachesconsistent with our CRT regulatory proposal, as we stated in the preamble to our June 12, 2002,notice. We also routinely refer inquiries on this issue to the states which have the authority anddiscretion to address CRTs differently.

We are also still optimistic that the NEPSI dialogue will bear fruit. We withdrew from theprocess when discussions had turned from voluntary initiatives to consideration of a joint effort tolobby for Federal legislation. While we would have liked to remain involved, we were concernedthat doing so would raise questions with anti-lobbying restrictions applicable to EPA staff and EPAgrantees. After our departure, the dialogue continued, found separate funding, and was able to issuean important resolution in February of this year indicating substantial progress by the stakeholders ona series of important issues. Overall, we believe the NEPSI process has been a valuable andnecessary step toward a national solution, and it should be recognized as such.

OIG also claims that OSW has failed to anticipate changes in the E-waste stream and provideregulatory response in a timely manner. Furthermore, OIG also states that OSW has not anticipatedtechnological changes that will introduce new waste streams. We disagree. For the last two years,we have been investigating whether a wide variety of non-CRT electronic devices (including flatpanel displays, cell phones and more) may be identified as characteristic hazardous wastes whendiscarded. We will closely examine technical and jurisdictional issues related to these devices.Technical issues include the appropriateness of using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure(TCLP) to measure the propensity for electronics to leach metals in municipal landfills. Jurisdictional issues will include examining the sources of various electronic devices, such aswhether they are largely generated by households or conditionally exempt small quantity generators.

RECOMMENDATIONS

2.3 Convene a working group to finalize the development of a product stewardshipframework for electronics, begun in the NEPSI dialogue. The type of working grouputilized should ensure that no limitations are placed on the possible recommendations,as was encountered in the development of draft Federal legislation in NEPSI.

RESPONSE

At this time, we do not see the need to convene a working group to finalize a productstewardship framework for electronics. The NEPSI process has not yet formally come to an end. Industry stakeholders are still seeking to reach a consensus on a national financing system. We willcontinue to monitor the progress of NEPSI. If, at some point in the future, it does seem advisable to

29

create another working group to complete any work not completed as part of NEPSI, we willconsider doing so. Any such effort, however, will be subject to the same constraints and limitationsrelating to Federal legislation if EPA is involved. In the meantime, as part of the development of anoverall strategy for the Resource Conservation Challenge, we have recently developed a draftproduct stewardship framework. This framework addresses a number of product sectors, includingelectronics. This strategy is being reviewed internally within EPA at this time and is expected to befinalized and publicized in the upcoming months.

2.4 Finalize the CRT Rule as soon as possible.

RESPONSE

EPA agrees with this recommendation. We have drafted a final rule on CRTs and CRT glassdestined for recycling. The draft final rule is currently undergoing internal Agency review beforesubmission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). After Administration review, weanticipate that the rule will be finalized and published in the Federal Register in 2005.

2.5 Define OSW’s regulatory ability to address new definitions of E-waste, in a mannerthat precludes major delays such as those encountered in the CRT rule. In addition toaddressing electronic devices determined to be hazardous waste, this effort shouldinclude an evaluation of industry trends to identify potential future impact areas. Thiscould be implemented through a stakeholder review committee tasked with evaluatingelectronic waste streams and their implications.

RESPONSE

We agree that EPA needs to determine whether other non-CRT electronic devices could becharacteristic hazardous wastes when discarded. We are currently reviewing a recently issuedanalysis by the University of Florida on CPUs, monitors, laptops, printers, VCRs, cell phones,keyboards, mice, remote controls, smoke detectors, and flat panel displays. We will be examiningclosely any technical and jurisdictional issues related to these devices. The Agency will also bestudying industry trends to identify areas of potential future concern. We currently believe thatinformal consultation with various well-informed stakeholders is a better way to learn about thesetrends than a formal review committee.

U.S. LAGGING BEHIND INTERNATIONAL E-WASTE EFFORTS

We recognize the concern of many that the United States is lagging other countries inaddressing E-waste. However, we would like to point out a number of international efforts related toe-waste management where the United States is actually leading the rest of the world. For example,the United States has been one of the most active nations in the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD) supporting the development of a framework for assuring theenvironmentally sound management (ESM) of wastes, including e-wastes. Specifically, OSW ledthe OECD effort to develop guidelines on ESM for used personal computers. That technicalguidance document was issued in February 2003. Further, under the Basel Convention, the UnitedStates (OSW) is the most active nation involved in the development of ESM guidelines for themanagement of used cell phones, as we are chairing or co-chairing several of the workgroups. Weare also very active in development of a new Basel initiative for addressing end-of-life personal

30

computers. As part of this new Basel effort, the existing OECD guidelines, whose development wasled by OSW, are being recognized as a useful base.

CHAPTER 3

EXCLUSION MAY ALLOW HIGH VOLUMES OF E-WASTE IN MUNICIPALLANDFILLS

OIG states that much of the anticipated volume of E-waste (perhaps as much as 90 percent)may be disposed ultimately in municipal solid waste landfills, due to the existing RCRA householdhazardous waste exclusion, which allows households to dispose of hazardous waste in municipallandfills.

The implication of OIG’s statement is that all E-waste would exhibit a RCRA hazardouswaste characteristic. To date, EPA has only concluded that CRTs from televisions and personalcomputers typically and frequently fail the TCLP. The Municipal Waste Characterization Report,which estimates the amount of E-waste discarded, addresses far more e-waste than just CRTs --including VCRs, camcorders, CD players, radios, telephones, printers and fax machines. EPA is inthe process of assessing which other electronics fail the TCLP. Some may but we do not expect it tobe the entire range of consumer electronics.

The most recent MSW Characterization Report does estimate that 91% of E-waste isdiscarded. However, this is a worst case estimate. As the report recognizes much end-of-life E-waste is in storage. Future updates to the Characterization report will take account of more recentand sophisticated estimates of E-waste storage, likely resulting in a significantly smaller estimate ofe-waste discarded. A recent estimate of household CRT disposal prepared for OSW indicated that3.9 million computer monitors and 7.65 million televisions were discarded in municipal landfills in2000. This is a fraction of the household TVs and PCs that become obsolete in a given year. SeeOIG’s estimate on page 2 of its report that 50 million computers become obsolete each year. EPAagrees with OIG, however, that we need to encourage these stored products to move towardrecycling rather than disposal.

Regardless of how much E-waste that may exhibit a hazardous characteristic finds its wayinto municipal landfills, EPA does not believe that this will pose an environmental risk. In October1991, EPA issued updated criteria for MSWLFs that may receive household waste that exhibits ahazardous characteristic and conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) hazardouswaste to ensure the protectiveness of these landfills. In addition, several studies over the years haveshown that leachate from municipal landfills for most metals is at levels below the drinking waterstandards. Our primary interest in focusing on increasing recycling of E-waste is based on resourceconservation and minimization of the environmental insults that result from materials extractionrather than on environmental risks from landfilling the waste in properly managed landfills.

These findings are further supported by a recent SWANA study, which reported thatmunicipal solid waste landfills can provide safe, long-term management of products containingheavy metals and can effectively control the release of heavy metals to the environment. The report,entitled, “The Effectiveness of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Controlling the Releases ofHeavy Metals to the Environment” is available online at www.SWANAstore.com.

31

With regard to the discussion of whether the household waste exclusion is based onregulation or statute, we have several suggestions. First, the 4th paragraph on page 15 of the draftOIG report should be omitted. By stating that the exclusion itself is regulatory and not based onstatute, the report suggests that EPA could eliminate the exclusion altogether. However, not only didEPA promulgate the exclusion on the basis of expressed legislative intent in legislative history(Senate Report No. 94-988 at 16 (1976)), Congress subsequently recognized the household wasteexclusion and included it in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, P.L. 98-616(HSWA). See RCRA sections 3001(i), 4005(c), and 4010(c), which were added by HSWA. It istherefore OSWER's position that the household waste exclusion is statutorily based, that Congressintended there to be an exclusion for household waste, and that elimination of this exclusion wouldbe contrary to RCRA.

At the very least, the first sentence of the 4th paragraph on page 15 should be edited foraccuracy as follows: "We have concluded that the scope of the household hazardous wasteexclusion is based on regulation, not statute." OSWER agrees that the scope of the household wasteexclusion could be amended. Indeed, the scope of the exclusion has been amended since it wasoriginally promulgated. See 49 Fed. Reg. 44978 ( Nov. 13, 1984).

RECOMMENDATION

3.1 Ensure that household hazardous waste E-waste volumes are estimated annually, todetermine the impact of the household hazardous waste exclusion on E-waste disposalin municipal solid waste landfills. In conjunction with stakeholders, OSW should definecontingency plans if the household hazardous waste E-waste volume exceeds specifiedamounts.

RESPONSE

OSW will continue to refine its estimate of e-waste disposed in the US as part of itsMunicipal Solid Waste Characterization Report, using updated estimates of e-waste storage. We donot agree that there is any need to define contingency plans regarding volumes of e-waste discardedin landfills because we strongly believe MSW landfill management practices consistent with ourrequirements are protective of human health and the environment. Furthermore, indications arestrong that recycling of e-waste will grow as a result of citizen interest, voluntary businesscommitment, and policy mandates at the state and, possibly eventually, at the Federal level.

CHAPTER 4

EPA DOES NOT COLLECT ADEQUATE DATA ON E-WASTE

OIG states that existing data collected on E-waste are inadequate to support regulatorydecisions and that EPA is forced to rely on speculative national data. OIG appears to presume thatthe E-Waste problem will be solved exclusively through regulation. In the area of electronic waste,the Agency is emphasizing primarily voluntary programs. We are using a regulatory approach onlywhere absolutely necessary (the CRT Rule, for example).

6 “Disposition and End-of-Life Options for Personal Computers,” a Carnegie Mellon University report(1997). National Safety Council report, “Electronic P roduct Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report,” (1999). EPA’s MSW Characterization Report (updated at least every 2 years; a special effort was made a couple of yearsago to characterization of the various kinds of e-waste, rather than just providing an undifferentiated estimate of e-waste in to tal ). International Association of Electronics Recyclers annual survey of the electronics recyclingindustry. OSW ’s Capacity Analysis for CRT M anagement (June, 2004).

7 A report by the State of Massachusetts, “Electronics Re-Use and Recycling InfrastructureDevelopment in M assachusetts,” (2000) documented the results and the lessons-learned from a state-wide, state-supported CRT collection project; Northeast Recycling Council report on “Setting Up and OperatingElectronics Recycling/Reuse Programs: A Manual for M unicipalities and Counties” (2001), surveyed programsaround the country and offered guidance to o thers seeking to develop their own programs; EPA Region 3's report,“Final Report on The M id-Atlantic States Electronics Recycling Pilot,” (2004) documented costs and resultsfrom a 14-month region-wide collection pilot primarily focused on municipal dropoffs and permanent collections,with some assistance from industry; EPA’s data analysis for the NEPSI Dialogue included a variety of estimatesof the number of TVs and PCs available for recycling in future years, as well as expected storage times and averageper-capita recovery rates from pilots around the country; EPA’s Plug-In to eCycling Program collects data on thecosts and results of ongoing and one-time e-waste collections sponsored by its industry and municipal partners (sofar 162 one-time collections and 11 ongoing collections).

32

Within the framework of voluntary programs, EPA has not traditionally practiced as rigorousdata collection efforts as may be required to support regulatory actions. Nevertheless, in its pursuitof E-waste solutions, EPA has funded data collection activities in a targeted and efficient manner toinform its activities. In addition, for EPA’s E-waste initiatives, we have had access to a wide arrayof data from numerous sources dating from the late 90's to the present (some funded by EPA andsome not) which are more than adequate to demonstrate that electronics is a growing waste streamthat should be recycled. 6 This includes data collected by a number of states moving aggressively todivert electronics from disposal (e.g., CA, MA, MN and FL). Thus, we disagree that existing E-waste data are inadequate to support our efforts.

Recently, we have concentrated on data related to the costs of collecting, transporting andprocessing electronics bound for recycling, as well as recovery rates experienced by municipal andprivately-sponsored e-waste collection programs.7 For example, while still involved in the NEPSIDialogue, we developed a voluntary on-line data reporting system, open to state and localgovernments. Participants in NEPSI, as well as others who became aware of the data base, provideddetailed information about the costs, material collected, and other important data related to over 58collection programs in 18 states. In partnership with the Polymer Alliance Zone, this database isnow being expanded and improved so that data can be added by many more sources and viewed byany interested party.

The improved system will be a central repository for data voluntarily submitted on electronicscollection programs sponsored by government, industry and those participating in EPA’s voluntaryprojects (e.g., Plug-In to eCycling Program and pilots). Data will be accessible online to anyinterested party and offer them the ability to track their own data and/or analyze data from otherprograms for their own planning purposes. This project will standardize and increase the reliabilityof the information that is collected on e-waste collection programs around the nation. EPA intendsto use data from this database as the foundation for program evaluation and planning to be completedat the National Summit planned for early 2005.

Moreover, this spring OSW launched a quantitative assessment of the environmental benefitsof diverting electronics from disposal into reuse or recycling. As part of this effort, we will bereviewing baseline generation, disposal and recycling patterns (using existing information from awide variety of sources), further refining the performance measures for our various major electronics

33

initiatives and using this information to measure the potential health and environmental benefits ofmeeting these measures. This work was launched several months ago and will take some time tobear fruit.

As regards data on the disposition of EPA’s own computers, OARM tracks the disposition ofEPA computers in two ways: 1) the donation of computers through the Computers For LearningProgram is documented and a list is provided to GSA of all computers donated via this program; and2) OARM also manages disposition of EPA computers turned over to OARM (HQ only) via theexcess property program administered by GSA. The Regions, OARM Cincinnati and OARM RTPhave independent disposal programs. Nevertheless, OARM HQ does capture information oncomputers excessed by those offices and provides an Agency-wide listing of computers disposed viaGSA in an annual report to them. OARM does not have a mechanism to track the disposition ofcomputers after turnover to GSA, nor should the organization since GSA is the responsible disposalagent.

With regard to the Recycling Electronics and Asset Disposition (READ) contract, OSWwishes to amend the OIG report to add the fact that, on March 19, 2004, OMB designated EPA asthe authorized Federal agency to manage this Government Wide Acquisition Contract and to handlethe disposition of e-waste for all federal departments and agencies.

RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Identify the relevant data needed in support of the e-waste goals and performancemeasures, as defined in Recommendation 2.1. To ensure the proper definition ofrequired data, OSW should convene a stakeholder working group to define thenecessary data, frequency of collection, and most efficient and effective mechanisms forthe collection of the data.

RESPONSE

OSW agrees that adequate data are essential for the development of good goals and performancemeasures for our E-waste initiatives. We believe the goals and performance measures we haveestablished are based on adequate data available now from a wide variety of sources. Moreover, wehave a number of specific actions underway to supplement certain of this data. We will continue toexamine where additional data could be valuable, how best to obtain it and whether resources wouldpermit this data gathering. At this time, we do not believe that a separate stakeholder working groupis needed to assist in this effort. We are already working with multiple stakeholders in the Plug Inproject to assist in the development of a national data base on electronics recycling costs and results.If, however, a working group like that recommended would prove valuable in the future, we wouldcertainly consider this.

4.2 Work with the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, and the Office ofAcquisition Management, to ensure the implementation of the Recycling Electronicsand Asset Disposition Government-wide acquisition contract. OSW should ensure thatadequate data are collected to provide appropriate end-of-life measurements of EPA’scomputers. In the interim, OSW, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and ToxicSubstances, and the Office of Acquisition Management should ensure the disposition of

34

EPA’s computers is in accordance with its E-waste goals, develop the mechanisms totrack computer purchases and disposition Agency-wide, and develop effectivecommunications mechanisms with regional offices to ensure that the Agency is adheringto its own (as well as applicable State) hazardous waste regulations.

RESPONSE

EPA agrees with the recommendation regarding implementation of the READ acquisition contract. With regard to collection of information on computers excessed by EPA, the Agency (OARM, notOSW) does collect information on this material --at least until those computers are turned over toGSA for final management. As GSA has the final decision over what is done with materials turnedover to them, EPA is not in a position currently to track this disposition once materials leave itscontrol. The READ contract, when implemented, will provide a mechanism for any Federal Agencyto track final disposition of its computers. However, OARM, with agreement from GSA, will onlytrack disposition through turnover to GSA. Nevertheless, EPA will work in the context of theFederal Electronics Challenge to encourage GSA to track disposition of all Federal E-waste to itsultimate disposition.

35

Appendix B

Distribution

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5103)Director, Office of Solid Waste (5301W)Comptroller (2731A)Agency Followup Official (2710A)Agency Followup Coordinator (2724A)Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5103)Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (1301A)Associate Administrator for Communications, Education, and Media Relations (1101A)Inspector General (2410)

Multiple Actions Taken to Address Electronic …...2004/09/01 · Multiple Actions Taken to Address...

Documents

Transcript of Multiple Actions Taken to Address Electronic …...2004/09/01 · Multiple Actions Taken to Address...